Someone made a specific decision to make 130 the cutoff; it has to be based on something (when I get a chance I want to research this for myself; it might be in the legislative history of the different state statutes). It may just be that represents the top 10% say for cognitive ability in any one class by grade level.
It is my understanding that on the "normal curve" of IQ distribution, 130 historically represents the upper limit of the 2nd standard deviation from the norm, the top 2% of the population, therefore identifies individuals with a relatively rare intellectual profile.
Yes.
With regard to the NNAT-2, I am not aware of the specific news coverage mentioned upthread, but I do know that the author has been involved in a fair amount of litigation arguing that the use of
other instruments, with heavier language-loads, or more subjective criteria (e.g., teacher rating scales), unfairly discriminates against children from cultural-linguistic minorities. I mention this to give some perspective on the thinking behind its design. (I actually sat at the breakfast table with him once, while he was discussing some of his advocacy experiences with another distinguished professional in the field. Yes, I was eavesdropping!) The test is not without its flaws (as with any instrument), but it is used in GT admissions because its history is less discriminatory toward diverse populations.
In the case of the OP's child, the lack of scantron experience would probably be the place to start. If it turns out that there are visual issues, one accommodation would be to have the student mark the responses directly on the test booklet, then have a proctor transfer the responses to the scantron sheet after the test. You may also be able to have them check the original test booklet, to see if there were bubbling errors, as suggested by several PPs.
